Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.

Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA) is a service we offer sellers that lets them store their products in Amazon's fulfillment centers, and we directly pack, ship, and provide customer service for these products. Something we hope you'll especially enjoy: FBA items qualify for FREE Shipping and .

or

Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA) is a service we offer sellers that lets them store their products in Amazon's fulfillment centers, and we directly pack, ship, and provide customer service for these products. Something we hope you'll especially enjoy: FBA items qualify for FREE Shipping and .

We all know we should give to charity, but who really does? Approximately three-quarters of Americans give their time and money to various charities, churches, and causes; the other quarter of the population does not. Why has America split into two nations: givers and non-givers? Arthur Brooks, a top scholar of economics and public policy, has spent years researching this trend, and even he was surprised by what he found. In Who Really Cares, he demonstrates conclusively that conservatives really are compassionate-far more compassionate than their liberal foes. Strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills-all of these factors determine how likely one is to give. Charity matters--not just to the givers and to the recipients, but to the nation as a whole. It is crucial to our prosperity, happiness, health, and our ability to govern ourselves as a free people. In Who Really Cares, Brooks outlines strategies for expanding the ranks of givers, for the good of all Americans.

See the Best Books of 2017 So Far
Looking for something great to read? Browse our editors' picks for the best books of the year so far in fiction, nonfiction, mysteries, children's books, and much more.

Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA) is a service we offer sellers that lets them store their products in Amazon's fulfillment centers, and we directly pack, ship, and provide customer service for these products. Something we hope you'll especially enjoy: FBA items qualify for FREE Shipping and .

Special offers and product promotions

Editorial Reviews

Review

"Who Cares is not just about how we contribute time and money; it is also about how our culture may affect our politics and our economy. It is the best study of charity that I have read." -- James Q. Wilson

From the Publisher

"There will of course be many readers (and many more nonreaders) of Mr. Brooks's book who will dismiss it on its face, and there will be fierce efforts mounted to discredit his analysis and data. Let them come. Who Really Cares should serve to change the public discussion dramatically. With any luck, it will be for our decade what Charles Murray's "Losing Ground" was for the 1980s (challenging the disincentive logic of welfare) or what Michael Harrington's "The Other America" was for the 1960s (highlighting the persistence of poverty amid affluence) ─ the text at the center of a constructive national debate." ─Wall Street Journal

"The next time you find yourself in a conversation about how liberals are caring and compassionate while conservatives are selfish and hard-hearted, you might want to refer your interlocutors to Who Really Cares."--First Things (December 06)

"Provocative... It's not just that charity helps those on the receiving end, says Brooks, an economist at Syracuse University in New York. It also strengthens the cohesion of society at large. Moreover, it appears to make the givers themselves more successful, possibly because the activity transforms them somewhat into better or happier people. Whatever the reasons, he finds that higher income tends to push up charity - and that greater charity tends to push up income."--Christian Science Monitor (11/27/06)

"[B]reaks new ground... In WHO REALLY CARES, Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others."--Chronicle of Philanthropy (11/23/06)

This is a rather fascinating book. I find it interesting to read about who gives and why and who doesn't give and why. The way we give tells a lot about us as a people. So do the organizations we give to.

This book goes into great detail and uses only the data. It is not biased. It's interesting the read that the working poor give more than the rich when you take into account the percentage of their income.

It's also interesting to read that people who give are happier and that giving creates prosperity. I've always believed that --- in a secular and not religious way.

I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in giving and people who give and also to people who would like to increase their own prosperity by putting the law of giving into effect.

The significant conclusion of this book is that it is the conservative and religious amongst us who are the most charitable. Brooks reaches this conclusion by reviewing a mass of available statistical data -. A substantial appendix provides detail and background to these surveys conducted by independent research bodies during the decade preceding this work. He is candid in admitting that it is not necessarily a conclusion that he was predisposed toward. They are, he admits, "contrary to my political and cultural roots." This fact, he says spurred him to even more rigorous analysis which failed to overturn the inescapable conclusion.Amongst other findings he notes the US electoral map and the charity map are remarkably similar: "For example, registered Republicans were seven points more likely to give at least once in 2002 than registered Democrats." Furthermore, he finds, "religious people are far more charitable with their time and money than secularists." And "people deeply embedded on the political left are usually not part of a "culture" of giving."Most of the research is presented lucidly ad compellingly. My one cavil being the author's tendency to present and then re-present similar findings with minor variations. The style becomes somewhat repetitive. The section which for me was the hardest to digest was one in which Brooks discusses the notion that charity stimulates prosperity not only at societal level but also at the individual: the so called "Rockefeller Hypothesis" first stated by the founder of the eponymous philanthropic foundation. Brooks presents a statistical analysis of the causal relationship between individual giving and individual prosperity about which I remain skeptical.These last concerns aside this is a book that belongs in collections devoted to the serious study of charity, philanthropy and the third sector.

This book confirms with research something that conservatives already know. Some of the reviews by those on the left express their indignation about the findings because they happen to be giving people. Obviously opposite examples can be found in any group sampling. Conservatives don't generally try to paint liberals as uncaring. The problem has been liberals trying to paint conservatives as uncaring and ungiving because of opposition to the government being the primary source of giving. When people control more of their own money, they are free to give from their own hearts as they see the needs arise in their own neighborhoods.

It is certainly no surprise that people on the political Right tend to be positive about this book, and those on the Left negative. As a Briton with no political affiliations but a great interest in, and respect for, the USA, I am trying to reach a balanced view. Professor Brooks brings formidable statistical evidence to support two observations I made long ago on the aspects of the world I happen to have experienced, but of which I had no more general proof until I read this book. First, Americans are on average - and it is important to stress that "on average" - far more generous, hospitable, and civic-minded than Britons and Continental Europeans: I doubt many strangers have found such a warm welcome in most parts of Europe as I have found when I visited different parts of the States. Second, from what I have seen of charitable giving and active citizenship, conservatives are, again on average, likely to be more generous with their time and money than the self-styled communitarians of the political Left - or rather, to be perfectly precise, those with an active religious faith are more likely to be generous, and those with an active religious faith are also more likely to tend to the political Right. As they would be the first to point out, this does not imply that religious believers are innately "better" or more generous people - but it is logical that those who believe in, and love, an All-Seeing, All-Powerful God Who approves of, and may even reward, Compassion have a far greater motive to act compassionately than those who do not. Professor Brooks simply confirms these personal conclusions. Indeed, the book's title is misleading because there is nothing at all surprising about it: conservatism has always had a paternalist streak, and "compassionate conservatism" is something of a tautology. The only thing that was unexpected was the degree of difference in generosity between different types, which was even greater than I for one had anticipated. However, although Professor Brooks' statistical approach is powerful evidence for what was previously only suspected, there are always two inherent weaknesses in reliance on statistics alone. First, it cannot be stressed enough that all these conclusions are "on average", and there are always exceptions to the overall pattern: there are some mean people on the Right and some generous people on the Left, because there are some religious believers on the Left and some irreligious people on the Right, as well as some religious people who do not live up to their religious obligations and some atheists who are as generous as any believer. Second, one should never take statistics at their face value without questioning the basis on which statistics are selected. That said, Professor Brooks does enough to prove his basic thesis and his book deserves a higher profile in public debate.